Nobody understood it

nobody understood it
millions died for it

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SW9PDj1jqRU
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The ultimate beta uprising

I understand Marxism perfectly, which is why I recognize that it should be destroyed.

Can anybody on this fucking planet explain the basic gestalt of communism in one sentence

t. classcuck
abolition of private property

Marxism is the class ideology of the middle class in capitalism. Marxism is an ideological expression of the middle class' desire to rose up and usurp the position of the capitalists and transform themselves into a new class, that is to say a new ruling class, called the nomenklatura. The protonomenklatura seeks to establish a totalitarian state to reign over the working class and underclass in place of the capitalists, and enact a much harsher rule than capitalism. The purpose of this totalitarian state, as Marx himself admitted in his interview with an English newspaper, is to commit literal, physical, violent genocide against the capitalists and whatever other groups the nomenklatura deems inconvenient to their rule. The pretext of doing so in the name of the working class is an inconsequential afterthought, nothing more than a cynical propaganda ploy to justify their sociopathic, self-serving ideology, a lie told perhaps even to some degree to themselves. Totalitarianism and mass murder are together the soul of Marxism, its telos. There is no end goal beyond them. No Marxist has any honest intent whatsoever to establish Communism, which is just a fiction, neither possible nor desireable. A Marxist word would be one of universal chaos, suffering, and death, a manmade Hell. Any Marxist who denies their totalitarian and genocidal ambitions is perfectly happy to assist other Marxists in realizing them through mutual support, and will collide to try to deny, downplay, or ignore such crimes against humanity after the fact, so there is no way for a Marxist to distance himself from other Marxists. Of course Marxists are liars. Dialecticism to them is a premade justification for any evil act, including lying.

Marx was not the first Marxist, nor were the core ideas he presented anything new. There had already been Marxist movements before, most notably in the Munster Rebellion of the 16th century. Marx stole all of his ideas from religion and occultism, with a thin veneer of respectable philosophy subverted, and a sham of science. Marxism itself is a crude amalgamation of various strains of Millenial Christian thought, Kabbalism, and Luciferianism. The first Marxist is described in the Book of Genesis, in the figure of Cain. The story of Cain and Able is the prototype of Marxism, and every Marxist revolution has played out identically and will forever play out identically because of the spirit of a Marx is the spirit of Cain, the spirit of Satan. The voices of Marxists are as meaningless as the howling of demons.

this is hilarious where did you get it from

>nobody understood it
>millionaires died for it
and nothing of value was lost

I've been researching the precursors of Marxism and I quickly realized that it's nothing new, just a new name for a much, much older phenomenon. For example the Munster Rebellion of 1534, centuries before Marx was born, still followed the inevitable trajectory of all Marxist movements to a T, the same blueprint as Jonestown or the Reign of Terror or the USSR.

But I soon realized that the prototype must be much older even than that. The various Medieval heresies, ancient slave revolts, and peasant uprisings hold true to the pattern to a degree, but I think I've found the ultimate source of them all, fittingly enough in Genesis.

Was Cain the first leftist?

>instead of being humble and doing God's will by offering an acceptable sacrifice, sought to inflict his own ego on everyone
>instead of doing as God asked, sought to glorify the product of himself, substituting what is God's for his own creation
>envious that God held more favor for others to the point where he was filled with murderous rage
>lied to the innocent, telling him that God was waiting in the field of labor, only in order to murder him

The archetype of Cain encapsulates the personality of every SJW I've ever known, and the basic narrative predicts every step and stage of every leftist revolution in history.

Of course Cain and Abel is a refiguration of the rebellion
of Satan, and you could say that the serpent's lie in the garden was the first instance of leftist discourse, but Cain and Abel is the oldest story I can find that is clearly a fully human prototype of leftism.

The idea of a self-aggrandizing, narcissistic blowhard being rejected by reality and reacting with callous manipulation and murderous rage toward innocents I think is the very essence of radical psychology.

>nice one, boss

Ironically, reactionaries that understand Marxism and class relations are the most efficient and brutal capitalists.

Was Stalin wrong for ending NEP? Were NEPmen that bad?

But billions were saved

I know you're a meming retard, but historical precedent was a huge part of Marxism. Marxism isn't being revolutionary. It was meant to formalize long term trends of human society in historical materialism and revolutionary dialectics, saying that capitalism isn't the end of history.

Autocorrect mutilated so many words but I'm not going to proofread a Veeky Forums post.

Yeah because for decades 'it' was dictator's paranoia that some tried to shape into logic.

Which is why Marx starved his own children to death by writing Das Kapital at the library instead of getting a job. He was fully aware of what happened in, say, the Munster Rebellion. He probably jerked off to the woodcuts of the emaciated peasants trapped between the walls. He wanted to repeat Munster on a grander scale, with himself in the role of false prophet, and not just a city this time, or even a country, but an entire world. Marxism is an ideological serial killer, and starving people to death is its modus operandi. This was the technique, the justification, the excuse, Marx recognized and seized on. No wonder leftists are mostly fat. They secretly want to be sent to a gulag to starve, because they know they're killing themselves via capitalist plenty. Marxism is their subconscious crying out, "Save me from myself. I'm eating myself to death. I don't deserve freedom. Someone enslave and starve me." But I think that's giving them too much credit. They more likely imagine themselves as the revolutionary heroes starving others to death at the end of a whip while they themselves get even fatter, killing their own gluttony and selfishness in the form of other people.

>[citation needed]

>nobody understood it
They understood it perfectly.

Marxism is a demagogic doctrine that promises to workers an impossible utopia without social classes, government or capitalism. However, to get to the Communist utopia stage, Marxism has deviced a method where first, it expects people to allow the State to concentrate all economic and political power through a previous stage called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

Thus, Marxism's great contradiction is that it seeks to abolish the State, by first going in the opposite direction, making it an all-powerful totalitarian force with power over the lives and property of every subject, naïvely expecting a government, once it has become all-powerful and corrupt, to willingly give up this power.

However, Marxism doesn't have this contradiction as a flaw or out of naïveté. It is intentional. Because Marxism is not really a valid political program, but a blueprint for would-be totalitarian dictators to promise Heaven and deliver Hell.

So, maybe the layman on the street, the пoлeзный идиoт ("useful idiot" as Lenin called them), did not understand Marxism's ulterior motives, but the problem is that the Politburo, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, Castro, and so on... all of them understood it very well.

"marxism" is not a political programme, brainlet. it's a method of socioeconomic analysis. it's an academic discipline
also
>muh gorillions
do the world a favour and add yourself to that list

Marxism is the political programme of the Communist Party that Marx personally founded and wrote the programme for.

embarrassing. please try harder

Wrong, it was actually George Soros who founded the communist party

>"marxism" is not a political programme, brainlet.
The Communist Manifiesto has a very clear, 10-point political programme outlined, which is clearly what I'm alluding to here.

>it's a method of socioeconomic analysis.
Completely discredited inside of its actual intended field of study, Economics. There are no Marxist economic schools accepted today in any serious university of the world, as every time Marxism has been tried it has ended in economic disaster.

Some concepts of Marxist economists are taught as a part of economics (such as the Kondratieff Waves) but more as curiosities to be debated between Ivory Tower academics than as part of the bedrock of economic doctrine.

The fact than Marxism has been forced to take refuge in sociology classes rather than its intended field of study, Economics, speaks volume to its lack of academic merit.

Das Kapital is a compelling read, I'll give you that, but it holds little weight nowadays.

>muh gorillions
Why do Marxists get upset like Stormfags do when you bring up the number of casualties communism has caused?
Which school do you want to use? Big numbers? Small numbers revisionism? It's still a disaster.

Just some sources for those killed during STALIN's reign of terror alone.

Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers school:
Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago,
Intro to Perennial Classics Edition by Edward Ericson: Solzhenitsyn publicized an estimate of 60 million. Aleksandr Yakovlev estimates perhaps 35 million.
Page 178: citing Kurganov, 66 million lives lost between 1917 and 1959
Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
1939-45: 18,157,000
1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine
William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
Cited by Wallechinsky:
Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.
MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.

And from the Lower Numbers School:
Nove, Alec ("Victims of Stalinism: How Many?" in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
Cited in Nove:
Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
Tsaplin, V.V. ("Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody" 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.
Dugin, A. ("Stalinizm: legendy i fakty" 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.
Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s.
Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.
MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.

the "communist manifesto" is not a communist manifesto at all. it's the manifest/mission statement of a specific politicial party, of a specific place, of a specific time. you are alluding to a misrepresentation of facts
>Completely discredited inside of its actual intended field of study, Economics
most "economics" is pseudoscience and guesswork, and reputable economists (like ha-joon chang) will tell you as much

everything else you've written is a strawman and the usual anticommunist spiel that's been peddled for decades. please do some actual reading and research instead of propagating stale memes

>the "communist manifesto" is not a communist manifesto at all

>it's the manifest/mission statement of a specific politicial party
So? Is it a political manifest or not?
You are contradicting yourself.

You are also intentionally obfuscating facts, because the Communist Manifiesto is studied as the basis of Marxism along with Das Kapital and 18th Brumaire, arguably the three most read books by Marx and entry-level Marxism 101, so you are being disingenous by pretending the Communist Manifiesto is not an essential part of Marxist thought.

>most "economics" is pseudoscience and guesswork, and reputable economists (like ha-joon chang) will tell you as much
Hillarious, I've read Ha-Joon Chang and he says nothing of the sort. He rallies against certain dogmas of the field, but he does not attack the field as a whole, nor Economics as a science.

Economics is a very well-established field of Humanities, which uses mathematical models to study Human economic behaviour. Most of its precepts are the result of more than two centuries of investigation and while there is healthy internal discussion as in every social science, its basic axioms are rock-solidly backed by evidence, to the point that denying, say, that price controls cause scarcity is to an Economist what denying gravity exists is to a Physicist.

>everything else you've written is a strawman and the usual anticommunist spiel that's been peddled for decades.
I don't think you understand what a strawman is. I've addressed your arguments head on.

>please do some actual reading and research instead of propagating stale memes
I've posted academic sources, seems you are the one relying on memes here.
Have a nice day.

>you are being disingenous by pretending the Communist Manifiesto is not an essential part of Marxist thought.
it's not
>I don't think you understand what a strawman is
you've misrepresented the facts and attacked that misrepresentation instead of addressing the reality. that's a strawman. you've also gone the extra mile and declared yourself the victor after knocking over the strawman
>Economics is a very well-established field of Humanities, which uses mathematical models to study Human economic behaviour. Most of its precepts are the result of more than two centuries of investigation and while there is healthy internal discussion as in every social science, its basic axioms are rock-solidly backed by evidence
you've just described marxism and anticapitalist theory in general
>I've posted academic sources
you've posted sources related to deaths during the soviet era. an unrelated subject that has nothing to do with marx or marxism, especially regarding the question of what marxism is and is not. it's also a notoriously unreliable field, due to the decades of propaganda, distortion and subterfuge of two opposing superpowers
>you are the one relying on memes here.
"communizm killed 100 bajillionmillion ppl" is one of the oldest memes around and your using it immediately betrays you as a fool
>Have a nice day.
die and rot in a ditch

>Ten points of Communism meme
At least read the stupid manifesto before you act like an arrogant cunt around it, it's under two hundred pages ffs.

>Stalin
>Beta

>manlet with webbed toes and polio scars who was so upset by this he had any ptinted pictures of himself retouched before printing
Yes

youtube.com/watch?v=SW9PDj1jqRU

>this voice
>not beta

pls

I have read it entirely, more than 10 years ago but still, why are you denying it has a 10 point economic and political programme?

>durrr the communist manifesto = the entirety of marxism and marxist theory
that's why, idiot

>it's not
They why is it taught as an introduction to Marxism in sociology classes where I had to read it for the first time?

>you've misrepresented the facts and attacked that misrepresentation instead of addressing the reality. that's a strawman
Where?

>you've just described marxism and anticapitalist theory in general
OK, now you are just trolling.

>you've posted sources related to deaths during the soviet era. an unrelated subject that has nothing to do with marx or marxism, especially regarding the question of what marxism is and is not.
You opened the door to discuss this when you wrote >muh gorillions, implying those deaths did not happen. It is relevant because these were deaths caused by regimes calling themselves Marxist.

>"communizm killed 100 bajillionmillion ppl" is one of the oldest memes around and your using it immediately betrays you as a fool
But it did. Maybe not 100 bajillionmillion, I've never heard that number, but at least 60 to 80 million worldwide seems like a conservative, fair estimate.

>die and rot in a ditch
Grow up kid.

Now that's a strawman.

I never said that. I said the Communist Manifesto is one of several core books of Marxism, not the only one. You on the other hand are denying it has anything to do with Marxist thought, which frankly is ridiculous.

>They why is it taught as an introduction to Marxism in sociology classes where I had to read it for the first time?
because like you, your professor hasn't heard of critique of the gotha program, origin of the family etc, and other seminal texts. your university and its liberal hack employee is not an authority on marx
>Where?
you are misrepresenting the communist manifesto as some sort of bedrock or totality of marxism. that's a strawman
>OK, now you are just trolling.
stay mad. you and other anticommunist brainlets are not going to nor capable of refuting 250+ years of socioeconomic study and analysis by some of the most intelligent people in modern history
>You opened the door to discuss this when you wrote >muh gorillions, implying those deaths did not happen
they didn't
>It is relevant because these were deaths caused by regimes calling themselves Marxist
they also called themselves democratic, but you don't blame democracy. dolt
>at least 60 to 80 million worldwide seems like a conservative, fair estimate.
capitalism costs 20 million deaths annually. so "communism" has some catching up to do
>Grow up kid.
i am grown up, which is why i'm not a liberal stooge like yourself
>You on the other hand are denying it has anything to do with Marxist thought
no, i'm denying that it has any importance to marxist thought and theory. which is doesn't. it has importance to the history of marx, which is not the same thing

>crushed all of his political enemies to the extent that by the time he became Head of State not a single person remained in the committee from when he started
>fought toe-to-toe with police and raided government arsenals for weapons before the Revolution
>masterminded a bank robbery
>had a wife, but bangs big-titted peasant women on a regular basis
>turned an agrarian country with a bloody history into a global superpower to rival the USA
>loved by his people
>died of natural causes

OK, I'm done here.
Let me know when you manage to produce some sources to back your failed delusions.

>50 million killed in late 20s and 30s
>27 million died in WW2
>few more million from starvation after WW2
>on top of millions in WW1 and RCW

>still somehow second economy of the world in 1950, while population grew

Not a communist or Stalin apologist, but you just picked the highest estimates you fucking faggot. Which don't make any sense.

say hi to your boss for me, classcuck

There's a follow up to that post with the lower numbers school. I myself I'm partial to Chistyakovoy which puts the number of Stalin victims at 20 million, but your mileage may vary.

>5’6”

>communism got rid of the porkies, Nazis and royalists

I know it's a joke image but most of the victims of communist regimes were workers and peasants and even when intellectuals were targeted they sometimes were leftists and communists themselves. Stalin was the most successful commie remover of all, ironically enough.

In Russia and Eastern Europe when the communist regimes were installed most of the time the "porkies" and royalist managed to seek refugee in the Western countries. The new political elites became porkies of the regime with many privileges. DDR recycled former Nazis and so did other countries in the Soviet block with their former Fascists.

>died of natural causes

>Maybe, we were wrong and capitalists are not that bad
>Instead of putting money to use, the nouveau-riche immediately start spending money on lavish parties and dining at restaurants (city folk) and holding up grain until the prices jack up (rural folk) in desperate attempt to overjew each other for a petty shekel with virtually no foresight.
>Nah, better to get tight with dictatorship.

Having seen the traditions of (((Russian))) business, I'd say the commies did right thing.
Also, funny, how classcucks bitch about slavery, when they can't even tell their own boss to go fuck himself without this shit affecting their career and quality of life.

It was part of the rhetorics during the Perestroika and consequent fall of USSR.

Faggots needed something to top the actual starvation deaths (amongst others) during the "free market and capitalism", otherwise pissed off people would elect either commies or nazis and outright hang every (((democrat))) in vicinity.

Except they weren't. They did target intellectuals disproportionately but for the average citizen, life became much better over this time. They generally become more left over the same period oddly enough.
Your last point didn't make much sense. I don't see what porkies fleeing from a hostile government is supposed to prove.
The Soviet Union did accept former Nazis into their society as long as they renounced their former deeds and connections. It is certainly morally questionable but doesn't challenge the complete moral fiber of the government.